Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[Philo]

In Acts 2:38, the word "for" (eis) is the same Greek word used in Matt. 26:28. The second option does not fit in the context of the passage.

Since Ischus has my back on the whole Mark 16:16 thing, I'll address this last point. "Eis" means "for." The word "for" has many meanings, because it's by its very nature a word that implies a number of different relationships. It can be both preposition or a conjunction.

"Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).
In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.""

(The above from www.watchman.org)

The Bonus Kitten,

Philo

 

[Philo]

Actually the truth is.... everything is under dispute. It is disputable that Christ died on the cross and rose on the third day. It is disputable that homosexualy is wrong. It is also disputable that the bible teaches that baptism is necessary. Just b/c something is disputable, does that make it opinionated?

That's not the point though. There is no honest way to read the Bible and contend that the Gospel writer wasn't trying to say that Christ was crucified. There is an honest way to read the Bible and contend that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

One is historical fact. The other isn't.

You should sit down and read Alexander Campbell's Christianity Restored. Much of the book is devoted to differenciating between matters of fact and matters of truth.

<3<3<3,

Philo

 

[Aaron11]

You nor I know what will happen in a "what if" situation. The only option that we have is to teach God's word.

Exactly.

My whole point in all of this is to show that if we make a statement like, "Water baptism is necessary for salvation," it includes all situations (even the extreme). I am not ready to say that God will damn* all those who have not been baptized, as I am sure you are not ready to either.

 

[Aaron11]

If anyone cares...

My thoughts on this whole subject:

It concerns me that people feel the need to make a judgement on all people who have lived since Christ, based on one action. I find it unnecessary to say that baptism is necessary for salvation, because that statement includes implications of judgement on all, of which I have no authority to judge. I will leave those "what if" situations to God and let Him do the judging. I have my guesses on what would happen, but those are just my guesses.

The fact of the matter is, saying that baptism is necessary for all to enter heaven is implying that none will enter heaven without baptism. Of course, this includes little babies, people who never knew, and people who never had opportunity (including the youngins). So, this statement is inherently judgemental and assuming that we know the fate of all. Not only do I find this unnecessary, but also completely overstepping our authority as God's created.

 

[aggie03]

Well, seeing that it was a custom that was well known to the Jews, they knew what baptism was.

Again, their custom and what was preached to them were two totally different things.

I don't think they did. The Jews Peter preached to had no idea this baptism was to be in the name of Jesus, nor did they know that it was for the remission of sins.

sins.

In fact, they didn't even know they needed to be baptized until Peter told them that they did.

This is what I wrote, not the Jews weren't familiar with the term baptism or what it had previously meant.

(Right now would be a good time to concede this point).

I await your concession

 

[aggie03]

If anyone cares...

I care I'm sure that there are others here who do as well.

My thoughts on this whole subject:

It concerns me that people feel the need to make a judgement on all people who have lived since Christ, based on one action.

People do this every day with a different 'b' word...believe. This is something that we have to do...how would you feel about people who judge others based on that? What about repentance? or confession? What about those actions?

I'm assuming that your meaning here is that in saying something is necessary, judgment is necessarily passed. Is that correct?

I find it unnecessary to say that baptism is necessary for salvation, because that statement includes implications of judgement on all, of which I have no authority to judge.

I agree with you - in fact, the only reason that I can say that baptism is necessary for salvation is because I believe that this is what God has said. It's not that I want people to be baptized, but it's something that God has said they should do. This concerns judgment of eternal salvation, being with God in heaven. God is the final say in everyone's case.

This however, does not mean that I cannot judge whether or not someone has done the things that God has said is necessary, otherwise, I would never be able to know if I myself had done what was necessary. Judging someone's eternal destiny is not equivalent with judging obedience to the things that God has said.

I will leave those "what if" situations to God and let Him do the judging. I have my guesses on what would happen, but those are just my guesses.

That's a good place to leave them, because there are 'what if' scenarios with every 'condition' on salvation. Will God be merciful to those people? The fact is, when you get down to the grits of it, no one can say for certain who will and who will not be saved except for God. Because God is faithful and does not lie, I can have a hope based on the things that God has said. The only way that I know of to be certain of one's eternal fate is to do the things that God has said are necessary. When one steps outside of those conditions, I can no longer say with certainty that a particular individual will be saved (keep in mind though, that my certainty means nothing in regard to God's judgment).

The fact of the matter is, saying that baptism is necessary for all to enter heaven is implying that none will enter heaven without baptism.

Would you make the same assertion about confession in regards to Romans 10:9?

Of course, this includes little babies, people who never knew, and people who never had opportunity (including the youngins).

Well, I don't think that little babies have sinned against God, and therefore are in no need of redemption or salvation. Again, refer to the other condition. Are you willing to say this about all of them? A baby can't believe either...

So, this statement is inherently judgemental and assuming that we know the fate of all.

The entire Bible is judgmental - and I have already admitted that I cannot tell anyone where they will spend eternity. All I can do is preach what the Scriptures say.

Not only do I find this unnecessary, but also completely overstepping our authority as God's created.

I disagree. Telling people what God has said is necessary is in no way overstepping any authority, in fact it's something that we're commanded to do.

 

[Philo]

IThe entire Bible is judgmental - and I have already admitted that I cannot tell anyone where they will spend eternity. All I can do is preach what the Scriptures say.


I disagree. Telling people what God has said is necessary is in no way overstepping any authority, in fact it's something that we're commanded to do.

I think the main issue is on the idea of "preaching what the scriptures say." There is a verse that says "there is no private interpretation." Well, this must mean something different to us non-Romanists, as the only thing we have in private interpretation. To put it another way, we can only know what we perceive to be true. We're completely trapped behind our own eyes, at least for the duration of this life.

The judgement comes not when you say "baptism is necessary to be saved" but more when you say "I'm smart enough to figure out that baptism is necessary to be saved, whereas you are not." Well, Jesus said we will be judged with the same measure we measure others by, and it holds true in this case. A knowledgable person can just as easily assert "you're not smart enough to realize that baptism isn't necessary to be saved." The fact that there is even an argument at all about this is demonstrative of the fact that there is more than one way to look at the issue.

Now, if you want to testify about the merits of regenerative baptism, I will suggest this way: Live your life to Christ as best you can. If you are in fact correct about water baptism being the only way into the Body of Christ, the only way to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, then it should bear itself out in your life. That's the only convincing evidence there is to someone who is already familiar with the Biblical text and has come to another conclusion. Both you and he are similarly equipped, but if you assertion is correct, you are the only one actually in Christ.

But, remember, this works both ways. If you meet someone who strikes you as profoundly Christlike and yet has not undergone baptism as you understand it, then perhaps it might be time to rethink your position.

All things being equal, the "fruits" of Christians I personally know who have no been immersion-baptised as such are what have tipped me from the fence. Christ gave us a standard to discern good teaching, and if you recall, it wasn't only that it lined up with the Bible. He said "good trees will bear good fruit and bad trees will bear bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." I use that standard of judgement more than I rely on my own interpretation of scriptures. My intellect could be wrong about the words, but good fruits remain good no matter how you cut them.

Just some thoughts,

Philo

 

[cougan]

I think the main issue is on the idea of "preaching what the scriptures say." There is a verse that says "there is no private interpretation." Well, this must mean something different to us non-Romanists, as the only thing we have in private interpretation. To put it another way, we can only know what we perceive to be true. We're completely trapped behind our own eyes, at least for the duration of this life.

The judgement comes not when you say "baptism is necessary to be saved" but more when you say "I'm smart enough to figure out that baptism is necessary to be saved, whereas you are not." Well, Jesus said we will be judged with the same measure we measure others by, and it holds true in this case. A knowledgable person can just as easily assert "you're not smart enough to realize that baptism isn't necessary to be saved." The fact that there is even an argument at all about this is demonstrative of the fact that there is more than one way to look at the issue.

Now, if you want to testify about the merits of regenerative baptism, I will suggest this way: Live your life to Christ as best you can. If you are in fact correct about water baptism being the only way into the Body of Christ, the only way to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, then it should bear itself out in your life. That's the only convincing evidence there is to someone who is already familiar with the Biblical text and has come to another conclusion. Both you and he are similarly equipped, but if you assertion is correct, you are the only one actually in Christ.

But, remember, this works both ways. If you meet someone who strikes you as profoundly Christlike and yet has not undergone baptism as you understand it, then perhaps it might be time to rethink your position.

All things being equal, the "fruits" of Christians I personally know who have no been immersion-baptised as such are what have tipped me from the fence. Christ gave us a standard to discern good teaching, and if you recall, it wasn't only that it lined up with the Bible. He said "good trees will bear good fruit and bad trees will bear bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." I use that standard of judgement more than I rely on my own interpretation of scriptures. My intellect could be wrong about the words, but good fruits remain good no matter how you cut them.

Just some thoughts,

Philo

Philo you arguement simply will not work. Just because a person bears good fruit doesnt make them Christian. Some people are raised a strong moral background built up Bibical priciple yet they are not interested in becoming a Christian. Yet these people can produce good fruit and sometimes more than the Christian across the street. The problem is that this person is like a wild tree that is growing outside of the vinyard. They need to be in the vinyard to be pleasing to God. This reminds me of the labors in the vinyard in Mat 20. The land owner goes out at different times of the day to invite people to work in HIS VINYARD which represents the church/kingdom. Notice verse 6

Matthew 20:6 6 "And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?'

Those who were not laboring in HIS VINYARD were considered idle. Those who are laboring outside the church/kingdom of God no matter what they are doing it considered as being idle to the Lord. Satin has pulled the wool over many people eyes by allowing them to think they are doing good thing for the lord yet they have not been laboring in his kingdom. Notice what Jesus says about this in following verses.

Matthew 7:21-23 21 " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

The Bible makes it clear that we must abide in the doctrine of Christ and obey it or we will not have enternal life.

Hebrews 5:8-9 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

2 John 1:9 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

To tell someone that word of God teaches that they have to be baptized to be saved is not passing judment it proclaiming the word of God. Jesus told his disciples teach and baptize people in to the possession of or into the name of the father, son, holyGhost Mat. 28:19. The very first sermon under inspiration of the Holy Spirit Peter boldy proclaimed that we have to repent and be baptized in name of Jesus for the remisson of sin (Acts 2:38) Those 3000 who obeyed that message were added to the church by God 41,47. Mark teaches that one must belive and be baptizd to be saved Mark 16:16.

We all know that being in Christ is the samething as being in his body/church. The Bible makes it clear on how that happens.
Galatians 3:27 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Romans 6:3-4 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death,1 Corinthians 12:13 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body --

So if you dont every get into Christ your fruits will do you no good at the day of judgment. Paul is a great example of a man who was perscuting Christians with a clear conscience yet he was in the wrong and it took Jesus himself to humble Paul to his knees. Paul obeyed the Lord instructions and waited for 3 days praying and fasting yet he was still in his sins until Ananais told Paul what else he must do to be saved.
Acts 22:16 16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Pauls sins were not washed away until he was baptized. The Bible is black and white when it comes to salvation. You either choose to obey it or choose not to become a child of God.

 

[openup4christ]

baptism represnts the coming in of the New spirit and the washing away of the old spirit our human nature. It isnt nessesary for salvation but is very much encoraged and should be but should be done only if u want to commit your self to living a life for God. And baptising babys is wronge because baptism is between u and God no a preist.

 

[Philo]

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits."

You're missing the point, Cougan. I wasn't talking about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. I was talking about how to convince someone that baptism is necessary to be saved, when that person has access to the Bible just as you do.

Go back and re-read my post.

 

[Philo]

The Bible is black and white when it comes to salvation. You either choose to obey it or choose not to become a child of God.

Nope, the Bible isn't black and white when it comes to salvation. Otherwise no one would argue about it.

 

[cougan]

Nope, the Bible isn't black and white when it comes to salvation. Otherwise no one would argue about it.

Yeah right. People argue over black and white issues all the time because they dont like what it says or they try to put a slant on it that simply is not there to justify their view.

Paul states the following about people.

2 Timothy 3:7​

always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

​

Romans 10:1-3 Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Paul makes it clear that when we READ the word of God we can understand it.
Ephesians 3:3-4 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

The Bible is very clear that Baptism is neccessary for salvation. When we suject ourselves to it we are being obedient to the faith and having faith in the working of God know that we are being united in Jeus death and being raised a new creature with our sins removed being added to the church by God. Col 2:12-13, Rom 6.

 

[western kentucky]

Since Ischus has my back on the whole Mark 16:16 thing, I'll address this last point. "Eis" means "for." The word "for" has many meanings, because it's by its very nature a word that implies a number of different relationships. It can be both preposition or a conjunction.

"Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily "denotes entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among," (p. 183).
In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to).

Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify "aim or purpose" (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean "on the basis or ground of (with reference to), Matthew 10:41; 12:41.

He states that, "the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.""

(The above from www.watchman.org)

The Bonus Kitten,

Philo

Philo,

Acts 2:38 says, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."

The verse states that one must repent and be baptized *for* the forgiveness of his sins. One may say that "for" (eis) means (because of) in the context of this passage. If this person is correct, then this idea would fit with the rest of the New Testament. Correct? From my understanding, it does not fit at all.

Also consider Matt. 26:28 - for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

The idea that Jesus poured out his blood (because of) the forgiveness of sins simply does not fit.

 

[Philo]

Yeah right. People argue over black and white issues all the time because they dont like what it says or they try to put a slant on it that simply is not there to justify their view.

Someone could very easily argue that immersionists do this very thing with Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8, and any number of other verses that say much about salvation and nothing about baptism. Something about logs in eyes seems to come to mind...

Paul states the following about people.

2 Timothy 3:7​

always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

Romans 10:1-3 Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Paul makes it clear that when we READ the word of God we can understand it.
Ephesians 3:3-4 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

The Bible is very clear that Baptism is neccessary for salvation. When we suject ourselves to it we are being obedient to the faith and having faith in the working of God know that we are being united in Jeus death and being raised a new creature with our sins removed being added to the church by God. Col 2:12-13, Rom 6.

But don't you see that everything that you've just quote could just as easily be quoted by someone taking the other side in reference to you?

...,

Philo

 

[Philo]

Philo,

Acts 2:38 says, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."

The verse states that one must repent and be baptized *for* the forgiveness of his sins. One may say that "for" (eis) means (because of) in the context of this passage. If this person is correct, then this idea would fit with the rest of the New Testament. Correct? From my understanding, it does not fit at all.

Also consider Matt. 26:28 - for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

The idea that Jesus poured out his blood (because of) the forgiveness of sins simply does not fit.

The word "eis" doesn't have to mean the same thing every time it is used. I think that, if nothing else, was made very clear in the quote I posted. You cannot apply that standard universally, especially with words like "kingdom," "law," and even "died" have a number of different meanings depending on context. Acts 2:38 is a scetchy norming text, because both ways of looking at the text are equally valid from the Greek. Things get even messier once the number of times salvation is mentioned in the bible with no reference at all to the supposedly essential act of water baptism is taken into consideration. It would be better to find a passage that says something like "you have to be immersed in water to be eligible for salvation at all" but unfortunately nothing so clear-cut and incontrivertable has been made avaliable for our consideration.

Fighting the Good Fight,

Philo

 

[western kentucky]

That's not the point though. There is no honest way to read the Bible and contend that the Gospel writer wasn't trying to say that Christ was crucified. There is an honest way to read the Bible and contend that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

One is historical fact. The other isn't.

You should sit down and read Alexander Campbell's Christianity Restored. Much of the book is devoted to differenciating between matters of fact and matters of truth.

<3<3<3,

Philo

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus was crucified; I agree with you. This is a fact! But, I strongly disagree with your second point. Our difference is with the use of "gospel" and "doctrine" in the bible. Sometime in the future I will send you a PM so we can finish our discussion.

From your perspective, if one is teaching that baptism is necessary, then he is teaching his opinion.... because it is disputable, and because it is not a historical fact. What about other issues, such as: Homosexuality, repentance, confession, etc?

 

[Aaron11]

Again, their custom and what was preached to them were two totally different things.



This is what I wrote, not the Jews weren't familiar with the term baptism or what it had previously meant.


I await your concession

The whole point being made was that the Jews knew what baptism represented basically, a rebirth, a cleansing, or a rite of passage. I wasn't saying that the Jews knew that they were supposed to be baptized into Christ. However, when they heard that instruction, they didn't need the whole concept of baptism explained to them, because it was not a foreign concept.

 

[Aaron11]

I care I'm sure that there are others here who do as well.


People do this every day with a different 'b' word...believe. This is something that we have to do...how would you feel about people who judge others based on that? What about repentance? or confession? What about those actions?

I do not believe people should say that stuff either (for the same reason).

I'm assuming that your meaning here is that in saying something is necessary, judgment is necessarily passed. Is that correct?

Yes.

I agree with you - in fact, the only reason that I can say that baptism is necessary for salvation is because I believe that this is what God has said. It's not that I want people to be baptized, but it's something that God has said they should do. This concerns judgment of eternal salvation, being with God in heaven. God is the final say in everyone's case.

This however, does not mean that I cannot judge whether or not someone has done the things that God has said is necessary, otherwise, I would never be able to know if I myself had done what was necessary. Judging someone's eternal destiny is not equivalent with judging obedience to the things that God has said.

Well there we go. We end up agreeing. I was arguing against the point that baptism is necessary for salvation (eternal). I agree that we should be baptized and it is what God wants us to do. I am also not ready to draw the line of eternal destiny where I have no business doing so. It sounds like you feel the same. I am glad we agree.

That's a good place to leave them, because there are 'what if' scenarios with every 'condition' on salvation. Will God be merciful to those people? The fact is, when you get down to the grits of it, no one can say for certain who will and who will not be saved except for God. Because God is faithful and does not lie, I can have a hope based on the things that God has said. The only way that I know of to be certain of one's eternal fate is to do the things that God has said are necessary. When one steps outside of those conditions, I can no longer say with certainty that a particular individual will be saved (keep in mind though, that my certainty means nothing in regard to God's judgment).

We see nearly eye to eye on all of this. I feel the same way.

One other thing, even if someone follows all of these actions which God has instructed, I am not willing to judge that for sure either way, because only God knows their heart. I am sure we agree on this also.

Would you make the same assertion about confession in regards to Romans 10:9?

I am not going to assert that confession is necessary for salvation. Again, it is for the same reason I will not make a general statement about baptism that asserts my judgement.

Well, I don't think that little babies have sinned against God, and therefore are in no need of redemption or salvation. Again, refer to the other condition. Are you willing to say this about all of them? A baby can't believe either...

Yeah, I agree. My point was, there are exceptions.

The entire Bible is judgmental - and I have already admitted that I cannot tell anyone where they will spend eternity. All I can do is preach what the Scriptures say.

Me too. I am sure that we handle situations practically the same.

I disagree. Telling people what God has said is necessary is in no way overstepping any authority, in fact it's something that we're commanded to do.

But, necessary for salvation is what I was talking about. Of course you shouldn't have the attitude that treats God's commands and instructions with carelessness. However I was talking about the whole soul determination.

 

[Philo]

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus was crucified; I agree with you. This is a fact! But, I strongly disagree with your second point. Our difference is with the use of "gospel" and "doctrine" in the bible. Sometime in the future I will send you a PM so we can finish our discussion.

From your perspective, if one is teaching that baptism is necessary, then he is teaching his opinion.... because it is disputable, and because it is not a historical fact. What about other issues, such as: Homosexuality, repentance, confession, etc?

There is a great deal of difference between "teaching" and "preaching." You can only teach doctrine; You can only preach the gospel. The difference between gospel and doctrine is this: The gospel is composed of the facts of Jesus' life. The evangel (good news) is not teachings, because teachings cannot be good news. In the same way, good news cannot be didache (teachings) because you don't teach news. You proclaim news. You preach news. But it's silly to try and teach news, because news isn't about being taught. It's about being heard. "Faith comes through hearing, and hearing the Word of God" means that you can't believe something that's never been put before you before your consideration. That's all gospel needs... Consideration. It needs no explaination.

Doctrine is conjecture and reasoning from the scriptures. Because it's not based on facts, but rather on truth (or should be), it is disputable. Facts "do," truths "are." Jesus was born from a virgin. Jesus lived a sinless life. Jesus died for our sins. Jesus rose on the third day. Jesus ascended to the right hand of God. See how these are all verb-based sentences? Now, compare with doctrine: A Christian must be baptized. A Christian must follow all ten of the commandments. A Christian should be modest. A Christian must meet on the first day of the week. These are not facts, but some of them may be truths. You cannot "believe" these things per se, but you can understand them or not understand them. There's simply nothing in those sentences that is a fact to be believed.

Christians are united by the gospel. We may be united locally or congregationally by doctrine, but that doctrine we agree on should be agreed on within ourselves. There will always be differences of opinion... This is human nature. Even when the Mosaic law was enumerated as clearly as anyone could ever hope, the Pharisees still disputed among themselves about what the points of the law actually meant. How much more so will we, being given not a book of law, but books of history and loveletters.

Hope that helps a little,

Philo

 

[Aaron11]

Yeah right. People argue over black and white issues all the time because they dont like what it says or they try to put a slant on it that simply is not there to justify their view.

Well I think that the Bible not always teaching in black and white is a black and white subject. Cougan, you obviously are one of those people who dont like that and you are trying to put a slant on it that simply is not there to justify your view.